United States v. Travis Ybarra, 700 F. App'x 543

Travis Ybarra was prosecuted in a multi-defendant indictment for (1) conspiracy to distribute ≥500 grams of methamphetamine and (2) conspiracy to commit money laundering; jury convicted him on both counts and he received concurrent long prison terms.
Government introduced recordings of calls and multiple coconspirator testimonies; identical money counters found in homes of several defendants including Ybarra.
Codefendant Kevin Weiss testified identifying the alias “HoodNutt” as Ybarra; Weiss gave unsolicited testimony that another codefendant said “HoodNutt was the guy that killed his cousin,” prompting a bench conference and a curative instruction; the court denied a mistrial.
Codefendant Samantha Edmunds testified that Ybarra was the only supplier for defendant Damon Schultz; her trial testimony conflicted with an earlier recorded interview in which she reportedly named other suppliers (Taco and Beto).
Defense impeached Edmunds on cross-examination and reserved the right to recall her; after the government rested, defense requested to recall Edmunds to play the prior recorded interview; the district court denied the recall as cumulative and the defense rested.
Ybarra appealed asserting (1) the district court should have declared a mistrial over Weiss’s violent-implicating comment and (2) denial to recall Edmunds violated his Sixth Amendment confrontation right; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Ybarra)	Defendant's Argument (Government)	Held
Whether a mistrial was required after Weiss’s unsolicited statement that “HoodNutt… killed his cousin”	The comment improperly placed violent conduct before the jury on a nonviolent drug charge and a mistrial was necessary	The comment was fleeting, promptly struck, and cured by the court’s instruction	Denied — abuse-of-discretion standard; curative instruction and overwhelming evidence of guilt made any error harmless
Whether denying recall of Edmunds to play her prior recorded interview violated the Sixth Amendment confrontation right	Denial prevented effective impeachment and confrontation; the video was best evidence to show she previously named other suppliers (Taco and Beto)	Defense already impeached Edmunds; the proposed impeachment was cumulative given other testimony corroborating Ybarra’s role	Denied — even if a Confrontation Clause issue existed, error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because impeachment was cumulative and government’s case was strong

United States v. Coleman, 349 F.3d 1077 (Eighth Cir. 2003) (abuse-of-discretion review for mistrial motions)
United States v. Sherman, 440 F.3d 982 (8th Cir. 2006) (curative instructions can cure exposure to improper testimony)
United States v. Muza, 788 F.2d 1309 (8th Cir. 1986) (instruction insufficient if verdict substantially swayed)
United States v. Brandon, 521 F.3d 1019 (8th Cir. 2008) (improper testimony harmless where strong evidence of guilt)
United States v. Williams, 796 F.3d 951 (8th Cir. 2015) (de novo review when Confrontation Clause implicated)
United States v. Warfield, 97 F.3d 1014 (8th Cir. 1996) (right to effective cross-examination but with district court latitude)
United States v. Willis, 997 F.2d 407 (8th Cir. 1993) (cited for cross-examination principles)
United States v. Juvenile NB, 59 F.3d 771 (8th Cir. 1995) (district courts may limit repetitive or marginal cross-examination)
United States v. Jones, 728 F.3d 763 (8th Cir. 2013) (harmless-error review for Confrontation Clause limitations)
Harrington v. Iowa, 109 F.3d 1275 (8th Cir. 1997) (factors for harmlessness of limiting cross-examination)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (harmless error standard for constitutional errors)